Summary Lectures Ethics
KC 1: Ethical dilemma
You can think of these vows as moral imperatives, as ethical values that we want to uphold. In these
decisions were many actors and stakeholders involved. Jaime had to weigh his options, see what were
the alternative courses of action and judge how these actions would affect these people and how that
reflected on his vows, his moral obligations. He realized, that more often than not, no matter what he
chose, he would have to break some of his obligations.
Ethical decision making
When an organization, a government, or society or just a person is making an ethical decision, what
they are trying to do is to choose an action that is in agreement with ethical principles that this entity
espouses. To do this, first one needs to understand what are the alternatives: the possible actions that
one can take. This is not a trivial matter at all. Very often, it is very difficult to know exactly what
your options are. You might not see an option. This can happen because of underlying assumptions, or
the specific perspective with which you understand the situation, or even due to unreflected ethical
considerations. And on the flip side, conscious ethical considerations can prohibit or exclude certain
actions. The way we see the possible alternatives depends on underlying ethical and social thoughts
that unless reflected upon, will result in missing certain viewpoints and certain possibilities. Next we
need to know who will be affected and how. Different groups are affected in different ways.
Recognizing alternatives
Recognizing stakeholders
Recognizing consequences
In all these questions, what is always at the center, is a legitimate clash of ethical values. There are
legitimate moral principles that dictate notions of what is good, what is right, and hence lead to a
dilemma on what is the moral action. This is the heart of what an ethical dilemma is. If there is no
clash of legitimate values, then there is no ethical problem. So, an ethical dilemma involves the clash
of legitimate ethical values.
Ethical dilemma
Clashes of legitimate rights or values or different principles and notions of good
Core to ethical decision making is the ability to balance clashing values
No clash of values no ethical problem
How do we identify what is ethical behavior?
What ethical behavior is NOT:
Feelings and emotions
Religious beliefs
Following the law
Following social conventions
Scientific knowledge
All of these things are very important when we consider an ethical question. They help us. They are
input that we should take into account, but they are not the whole story. Ethics cannot be to any of this
and it is something more than the sum of these parts. And this is in fact, the difficulty of ethics. Where
does the essence of ethics lie? It is very difficult to analyse an ethical dilemma and find the correct
answer if such a thing even exists. What should be the unquestionable basis on which we can ground
,our ethical principles? Or is there an unquestionable basis on which we can ground our ethical
principles? To this question, different thinkers provide different answers.
Aristotle: talks about virtue. You should do things that bring you closer to virtue.
o Do what brings you closer to virtue
Immanuel Kant: he puts human dignity and self-determination at the core. He thinks that
every decision, every question, every ethical problem has to be reduced and understood
through this lens.
o Do what respects human fundamental dignity and self-determination
Utilitarians/Jermey Bentham: believe that we should not consider anything other than the
outcome, the consequences of our actions, and how much pleasure and happiness or harm they
bring.
o Do what provides the most good and the least harm
John Rawls: talks about the importance of understanding our position in society and
understanding that in fact, the core of existence lies in the idea that we are sharing one
another’s fate. And it is through this lens that he asks the questions, what is just and what is
fair. Fairness is the cornerstone of Rawl’s idea of a just society.
o Do what is necessary to “share one another’s fate”
Communitarians: tell us that we should not forget of course, that we as humans are also part of
communities. We have a family, friends, a background and a history. A story of who we are.
And we cannot simply ignore our obligations to them, exclude them from our ethical
considerations.
o Act considering obligations to your community
Final thoughts
General ethical principles might clash with each other when we try to apply them to concrete
situations.
Een ethisch dilemma ontstaat wanneer legitieme waarden of plichten met elkaar botsen. Welke
keuze je ook maakt, je schendt altijd een andere waarde. Daarom moest Jaime in het voorbeeld zijn
opties afwegen, kijken wie erdoor geraakt werd en beseffen dat geen enkele keuze volledig “goed”
was.
Ethical decision making
Ethische besluitvorming betekent dat je probeert te handelen volgens de waarden die jij (of een
organisatie) belangrijk vindt. Dat vraagt drie dingen:
Alternatieven herkennen – welke opties zijn er echt? (vaak lastiger dan het lijkt)
Stakeholders herkennen – wie wordt geraakt?
Gevolgen herkennen – hoe worden verschillende groepen beïnvloed?
Een ethisch probleem bestaat alleen wanneer er een botsing van waarden is. Zonder botsing is er
geen dilemma.
Wat ethisch gedrag níet is
Ethisch gedrag is niet simpelweg:
gevoelens of emoties volgen
religieuze regels volgen
, de wet volgen
sociale normen volgen
wetenschap volgen
Deze elementen kunnen helpen, maar vormen niet de kern van ethiek.
Hoe verschillende denkers ethiek benaderen
Aristoteles – richt je op deugd: doe wat je een beter mens maakt.
Kant – respecteer menselijke waardigheid en autonomie.
Utilitaristen – kies wat het meeste goed en het minste kwaad veroorzaakt.
Rawls – beoordeel keuzes vanuit rechtvaardigheid en het idee dat we elkaars lot delen.
Communitaristen – houd rekening met je verantwoordelijkheden tegenover je
gemeenschap.
Kernidee
Algemene ethische principes botsen vaak in de praktijk. Ethisch handelen betekent daarom:
balanceren tussen conflicterende waarden.
, KC 2: Natural and positive laws and rights
John Locke: considered as the father of liberalism and has also deeply influenced libertarian thought.
Most important political work: two Treatises of Government.
State of nature: The hypothetical life of people before societies “came into existence”. A state
of “absolute freedom”.- this idea played a key role in the development of social contract
theory, law and governance.
For thinkers like Locke and Thomas Hobbes, another English philosopher, whose most
important work was the Leviathan, this state of nature was not just something hypothetical or
something that was lost in antiquity, that had happened in the distant past and didn’t exist
anymore. Instead, for them, the state of nature was something that was observed during their
time, e.g. in indigenous societies that were discovered or colonialized or during times of civil
war. This state of nature is for these thinkers a state of absolute freedom. But this does come
at price. Thomas Hobbes called the state of nature a state of war. John Locke does not see it as
something inherently bad, but certainly considers this natural state to lead to selfishness.
Locke: “Men, living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge
between them, is properly the state of nature.
So as you can see he has a positive outlook, however, he does believe that in the end our
freedom can easily be threatened in the state of nature, since we have no protection.
Civil society: “So the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge
freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is
no freedom.”
For Locke, the laws and the government are not abolishing our natural freedom that we have
in the state of nature: they preserve our freedom and they enlarge it.
The foundation of morality and government
Locke believes that people are made equal, rational and free. Natural rights and laws are
universal self-evident truths.
Natural rights: right to life, liberty and property
Natural laws: duties to not kill, enslave and steal
Political governance is the transfer of rights to the government in order to ensure enjoyment
of life, liberty and property.
Locke is one of the first thinkers to really discuss property rights. For Locke, property rights
are part of natural rights. His reasoning goes as follows: first of all, he believes that people
own themselves. If I own myself, I own my labor and the fruits of my labor, so then I own my
property. So I have a right to it. Property rights are natural and derived from labor. Now
Locke thinks that since our rights in the state of nature can be infringed upon, they can be lost.
We create political government, and we do this by transferring our rights to this government,
in order to ensure that our natural rights are protected and the natural laws are followed.
KC 1: Ethical dilemma
You can think of these vows as moral imperatives, as ethical values that we want to uphold. In these
decisions were many actors and stakeholders involved. Jaime had to weigh his options, see what were
the alternative courses of action and judge how these actions would affect these people and how that
reflected on his vows, his moral obligations. He realized, that more often than not, no matter what he
chose, he would have to break some of his obligations.
Ethical decision making
When an organization, a government, or society or just a person is making an ethical decision, what
they are trying to do is to choose an action that is in agreement with ethical principles that this entity
espouses. To do this, first one needs to understand what are the alternatives: the possible actions that
one can take. This is not a trivial matter at all. Very often, it is very difficult to know exactly what
your options are. You might not see an option. This can happen because of underlying assumptions, or
the specific perspective with which you understand the situation, or even due to unreflected ethical
considerations. And on the flip side, conscious ethical considerations can prohibit or exclude certain
actions. The way we see the possible alternatives depends on underlying ethical and social thoughts
that unless reflected upon, will result in missing certain viewpoints and certain possibilities. Next we
need to know who will be affected and how. Different groups are affected in different ways.
Recognizing alternatives
Recognizing stakeholders
Recognizing consequences
In all these questions, what is always at the center, is a legitimate clash of ethical values. There are
legitimate moral principles that dictate notions of what is good, what is right, and hence lead to a
dilemma on what is the moral action. This is the heart of what an ethical dilemma is. If there is no
clash of legitimate values, then there is no ethical problem. So, an ethical dilemma involves the clash
of legitimate ethical values.
Ethical dilemma
Clashes of legitimate rights or values or different principles and notions of good
Core to ethical decision making is the ability to balance clashing values
No clash of values no ethical problem
How do we identify what is ethical behavior?
What ethical behavior is NOT:
Feelings and emotions
Religious beliefs
Following the law
Following social conventions
Scientific knowledge
All of these things are very important when we consider an ethical question. They help us. They are
input that we should take into account, but they are not the whole story. Ethics cannot be to any of this
and it is something more than the sum of these parts. And this is in fact, the difficulty of ethics. Where
does the essence of ethics lie? It is very difficult to analyse an ethical dilemma and find the correct
answer if such a thing even exists. What should be the unquestionable basis on which we can ground
,our ethical principles? Or is there an unquestionable basis on which we can ground our ethical
principles? To this question, different thinkers provide different answers.
Aristotle: talks about virtue. You should do things that bring you closer to virtue.
o Do what brings you closer to virtue
Immanuel Kant: he puts human dignity and self-determination at the core. He thinks that
every decision, every question, every ethical problem has to be reduced and understood
through this lens.
o Do what respects human fundamental dignity and self-determination
Utilitarians/Jermey Bentham: believe that we should not consider anything other than the
outcome, the consequences of our actions, and how much pleasure and happiness or harm they
bring.
o Do what provides the most good and the least harm
John Rawls: talks about the importance of understanding our position in society and
understanding that in fact, the core of existence lies in the idea that we are sharing one
another’s fate. And it is through this lens that he asks the questions, what is just and what is
fair. Fairness is the cornerstone of Rawl’s idea of a just society.
o Do what is necessary to “share one another’s fate”
Communitarians: tell us that we should not forget of course, that we as humans are also part of
communities. We have a family, friends, a background and a history. A story of who we are.
And we cannot simply ignore our obligations to them, exclude them from our ethical
considerations.
o Act considering obligations to your community
Final thoughts
General ethical principles might clash with each other when we try to apply them to concrete
situations.
Een ethisch dilemma ontstaat wanneer legitieme waarden of plichten met elkaar botsen. Welke
keuze je ook maakt, je schendt altijd een andere waarde. Daarom moest Jaime in het voorbeeld zijn
opties afwegen, kijken wie erdoor geraakt werd en beseffen dat geen enkele keuze volledig “goed”
was.
Ethical decision making
Ethische besluitvorming betekent dat je probeert te handelen volgens de waarden die jij (of een
organisatie) belangrijk vindt. Dat vraagt drie dingen:
Alternatieven herkennen – welke opties zijn er echt? (vaak lastiger dan het lijkt)
Stakeholders herkennen – wie wordt geraakt?
Gevolgen herkennen – hoe worden verschillende groepen beïnvloed?
Een ethisch probleem bestaat alleen wanneer er een botsing van waarden is. Zonder botsing is er
geen dilemma.
Wat ethisch gedrag níet is
Ethisch gedrag is niet simpelweg:
gevoelens of emoties volgen
religieuze regels volgen
, de wet volgen
sociale normen volgen
wetenschap volgen
Deze elementen kunnen helpen, maar vormen niet de kern van ethiek.
Hoe verschillende denkers ethiek benaderen
Aristoteles – richt je op deugd: doe wat je een beter mens maakt.
Kant – respecteer menselijke waardigheid en autonomie.
Utilitaristen – kies wat het meeste goed en het minste kwaad veroorzaakt.
Rawls – beoordeel keuzes vanuit rechtvaardigheid en het idee dat we elkaars lot delen.
Communitaristen – houd rekening met je verantwoordelijkheden tegenover je
gemeenschap.
Kernidee
Algemene ethische principes botsen vaak in de praktijk. Ethisch handelen betekent daarom:
balanceren tussen conflicterende waarden.
, KC 2: Natural and positive laws and rights
John Locke: considered as the father of liberalism and has also deeply influenced libertarian thought.
Most important political work: two Treatises of Government.
State of nature: The hypothetical life of people before societies “came into existence”. A state
of “absolute freedom”.- this idea played a key role in the development of social contract
theory, law and governance.
For thinkers like Locke and Thomas Hobbes, another English philosopher, whose most
important work was the Leviathan, this state of nature was not just something hypothetical or
something that was lost in antiquity, that had happened in the distant past and didn’t exist
anymore. Instead, for them, the state of nature was something that was observed during their
time, e.g. in indigenous societies that were discovered or colonialized or during times of civil
war. This state of nature is for these thinkers a state of absolute freedom. But this does come
at price. Thomas Hobbes called the state of nature a state of war. John Locke does not see it as
something inherently bad, but certainly considers this natural state to lead to selfishness.
Locke: “Men, living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge
between them, is properly the state of nature.
So as you can see he has a positive outlook, however, he does believe that in the end our
freedom can easily be threatened in the state of nature, since we have no protection.
Civil society: “So the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge
freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is
no freedom.”
For Locke, the laws and the government are not abolishing our natural freedom that we have
in the state of nature: they preserve our freedom and they enlarge it.
The foundation of morality and government
Locke believes that people are made equal, rational and free. Natural rights and laws are
universal self-evident truths.
Natural rights: right to life, liberty and property
Natural laws: duties to not kill, enslave and steal
Political governance is the transfer of rights to the government in order to ensure enjoyment
of life, liberty and property.
Locke is one of the first thinkers to really discuss property rights. For Locke, property rights
are part of natural rights. His reasoning goes as follows: first of all, he believes that people
own themselves. If I own myself, I own my labor and the fruits of my labor, so then I own my
property. So I have a right to it. Property rights are natural and derived from labor. Now
Locke thinks that since our rights in the state of nature can be infringed upon, they can be lost.
We create political government, and we do this by transferring our rights to this government,
in order to ensure that our natural rights are protected and the natural laws are followed.
